Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Distribution of Wealth in the US and our shopping habits?

  1. #1
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,183

    Distribution of Wealth in the US and our shopping habits?

    I am sure many of you have watched this video regarding wealth distribution in the US.


    It got me thinking about why the wealthiest have so much more morney. I agree 100% with what is said in the video, and I think that the answer is because we gave them money. "So, what can people do about it?"

    So then I looked at who are the wealthiest people in America, and where do they get their money from. To no surprise, Bill Gates is on the top of the list and the top ten are worth a combined, $410.5 Billion. Of those, 136 Billion comes from Wal-Mart owners. If Sam were alive today, he would be worth almost double that of Bill Gates. The irony is Wal-Mart doesn't make or produce anything and just distribute goods at the lowest (or so they say) price possible. The top 50 make a combined $997 Billion. (Link to Forbs 400 list)

    We know who the wealthiest people are, but what about the wealthiest privately held companies. That would be Cargill, a food processing company and has an annual revenue of $113.9 Billion, followed by Koch Industries, which brings in $115 Billion each year. The next on the list is Mars (also food), and they only bring in $33 Billion. (Link)

    I too would rather see things move in a direction away from reality to perceived reality, but I also think about why these people are so wealthy. The answer is because we made them that way based on the goods and services we buy. When a person buys a computer at Walmart, they add to the wealth of on both Wal-Mart owners and Bill Gates. As for the Koch brothers, there wealth is a bit more complicated because it appears that they have their hands in all sorts of markets.

    My question to you is how active are you in keeping track of where your money is spent and where it goes? Do you actively try to spend your money at local mom & pop retailers and farmers markets? Or is the allure of convenience too great. Do you think that active campaigns to encourage people to shop smart can be effective or is it just too easy for society to hold their nose and head into wal-mart? I know it is difficult, and even more so for lower income people who can't always afford to buy local, which in many cases does have a higher price tag attached.

    Personally, we buy as much food as possible directly from farms who use organic growing practices because we believe it is healthier, and I can not think of the last time that I actually was in a Wal-Mart, but that is only because we shop at Meijer and Cost-Co, although we are cutting back on Meijer too. We also buy all of our gas at CostCo since it is less expensive and even locally owned gas stations don't make much if anything off of gas. We don't use big banks and stick with local credit unions and as we work to get out of debt, less and less of our direct income is going into the bank profit machine.

    We have been looking at how to do Christmas locally, not just in where we shop, but in the goods we buy. It is not easy because there is so little that is truly produced locally in terms of Christmas gifts.

    What about you? Do you line the pockets of the 50 wealthiest Americans? How do you, or do you, really keep track of where your dollar is going? Do you have other ideas on how to keep your dollars local and out of the hands of big corporations?
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  2. #2
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    What about you? Do you line the pockets of the 50 wealthiest Americans? How do you, or do you, really keep track of where your dollar is going? Do you have other ideas on how to keep your dollars local and out of the hands of big corporations?
    I am sure I line their pockets, if not directly, then indirectly.

    Of course I keep track of where my dollar is going, but I don't track it in terms of "local spending" vs. "non-local spending".

    I don't have other ideas besides "shop local", but then again, I'm not adamantly opposed to putting my dollars into the hands of big corporations.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Midori's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2013
    Location
    the Bible belt
    Posts
    751
    How do you think higher wages might affect this dynamic? Part of the deal with Walmart is that the wages they pay are disproportionate to the profits, at least in my mind. Most of the money leaves. By contrast, a lot of chains are franchises that are actually locally owned, so supporting my local Blimpies may well be supporting a local business, even if they do pay a franchise fee to a foreign corporation. Truth is, that franchise is valuable in that it offers a lower-risk, prepackaged business model to a local businessperson that might otherwise not have started or succeeded.

    Could Walmart be made "less evil" if it adjusted the way it distributes its gross revenue? Can that be done involuntarily in a capitalist (or arguably semi-capitalist) nation? Should it?

    Is there any justice to effectively capping salaries by taxing the heck out of the highest income bracket? What are the downsides?

  4. #4
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,810
    I definitely think carefully about where I spend my money. I have not been in a Walmart in years, for example. Last time I believe was on a trip. We were in a small town with a sick kid and there were no other options where we could medicine. But I am not in the ranks of the poor in a rural community with no other options. I have lots of options and access to information that allows me to make these informed decisions. I also have expendable income that many do not and that allows me to potentially pay more for products from sellers I feel more comfortable supporting. Many (most?) people are not in that position.

    Which brings up another very important facet of the Walmart dilemma. Part of their corporate strategy in recent years has been to deliberately drive other local business out by dominating the market and underselling them – especially in small towns. They have even opened TWO stores in smaller towns to expedite this process and then close one after the competition is gone. And they still make a profit. Don’t even get me started on the deliberate unemployment strategies that allow them to skirt providing benefits and instead direct employees to state health programs…

    The reality in many small towns across the country is that Walmart may be the only game in town. So, however high minded you may be about not supporting them, many folks just don’t have a choice. Add to that a poor population that really needs to cut every corner to stay afloat and its no wonder people continue to shop there.

    The thing that Microsoft and Walmart have in common is that they dominate the market at such a scale that it is difficult to see how any competitor could ever get enough of a toehold to move in on their market share. But we live in a rapidly changing world, so who knows.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  5. #5
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    I feel like we had this thread before. I have a vague recollection of it.

    I spend my money very carefully as far as what products and companies I support. Yet it's extremely difficult given the lack of consumer protection and information. I used to buy a local organic dog food and I had no idea they got bought out by proctor gamble until the food was recalled due to proctorgamble poisoning it. I avoid Shell and Chevron because they literally murder people in third world countries but sometimes I need gas and there ain't no other options. I don't have an inherent issue with wealth disparity except for the fact that with it comes inequal treatment and government sactioned poisoning of the public in the interest of more profits.

    We tried to pass a food labeling law in Cali recently but Mars, Koch, Pepsi-Co etc. came in and spent tons of cash to sway opinion against it. The initiative initially polled in the high 60's and by the time they were done most Californians were convinced it was a spcialistic anti-American plot to take away our freedoms and it did not pass.

    I was having a discussion with a friend recently on the topic of food. This friend is in a fairly low wage job and stated that she can not afford to buy the food she wants to feed herself and her kids. She would feed her kids more organic vegetables and fruits and minimally processed meats but it is cost prohibitive for her.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,659
    Blog entries
    5
    I think you are greatly oversimplifying the issue of how people get wealthy. Yes, we did "give" it to them for goods and services that we buy from them at a given price, that's simple economics. What you have not mentioned is the regulatory framework that allows for the wealthy to keep and grow their wealth disproportionately to those of us at the other end of the spectrum. Because the system is designed so that wealth is the catalyst for amassing more wealth but not necessarily sharing the wealth the income inequality will continue to worsen (it's already at the same level it was in 1929 before the Great Depression). Further compounding this is the fact that there is less class mobility, it's harder for people to move up the economic ladder. But hey, when you can effectively lobby enough to buy regulation, tax codes, etc. that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy why the hell should the little people matter?

    Someday the masses will wake up and realized they've been fleeced.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  7. #7
    Cyburbian WSU MUP Student's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lowering the PCI in the Hills
    Posts
    5,562
    I try to buy locally and from "Mom & Pop" stores when it is in my best economic interest. The sector where I've been able to that most effectively is with my clothing. These days about 90% of the clothing in my closet and dresser was purchased at one of three local stores, and about 90% of the clothing I have is made in the USA. I have found the clothing to be better quality than what I can find at comparable chain stores and the three stores I shop at offer free tailoring and alterations so when I need adjustments, they are happy to oblige. The salesmen and tailors at the local stores remember me, know what I like, and seem more than happy to go out of their way to assist me. And I can be a picky customer when it comes to my clothing. Even at higher end chain stores I've never been able to get as personalized service.

    Grocery shopping is the opposite for me. For the most part, I don't care about organic and all natural so that's not an issue (although I will buy corn, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, etc from the farmers near my parents house or from farmers markets if it isn't overpriced). We have a few very nice locally owned grocery stores near our house but we still shop at the Kroger because they have the best prices by far. Unfortunately, the locally owned grocers nearby are all geared toward the very high-end customers in the area yet they do not offer any significantly better service, fresher food, or a more comfortable shopping experience. Feeling good about spending money at a local store is not enough of a reason in its own to get me to shop there.

    For banking we use a mix of credit unions (although not particularly local ones) and evil banks. Some aspects the credit unions are better for and some the banks are better. Again, we look out for our own self interest first. If there is no particular reason to move all of our money to the credit union, we are not going to (though we are slowly using the credit unions more and more and the banks less and less).

    I haven't shopped at a Walmart since at least 2009, so I'm not lining their pockets. However, I did eat a one pound bag of pretzel M&Ms (Mars) at my desk today so all my efforts are probably a wash.
    "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - 1980 Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Posts
    397
    My grandparents lived in a small town in Pennsylvania. I remember the place quite well long before Walmart opened a branch in the town. Did Walmart hurt other retailers? Probably. It hurt the other chain retailers, not so much what mom and pop stores that still existed. Main Street was dead long before Walmart came in and as much as I dislike Walmart because most of the goods are crap, Walmart actually provides a much broader range of goods at cheaper prices than the older chain markets did.

    Am I lining the pockets of the superrich owners of big box stores when I shop there? Yes. But I'm lining my own pockets too. The money I save shopping at big box stores allows me to save more money which I do use for other consumer purposes such as travel or dining out at non-chain restaurants, or add to my investment portfolio.

    People like to romanticize the mom and pop businesses but most of them were crap too. They were hardly the fancy upscale boutiques in country club suburbs.

    I have always liked farmers markets but I've noticed recently that they're getting quite expensive. They're not the bargains they were anymore and the best deals are now from farm stands. But if the stalls at the farmers markets can get away with increasing their prices because of rising demand among liberal do-gooders in cities who have turned these markets into a cult activity, fantastic for them. In a capitalistic economy our consumer dollars are always going to be benefiting someone. Feel good for shopping at Costco if you want because the CEO only makes a couple hundred grand a year, but you ignore that the same CEO is also getting millions in stock options each year.....

  9. #9
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419

    Closing the income gap

    Because this thread is about the distribution of wealth, I thought this article would be appropriate.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

    I think most of the suggestions are spot on. As with everything, the devil is in the details.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  10. #10
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,183
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Because this thread is about the distribution of wealth, I thought this article would be appropriate.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

    I think most of the suggestions are spot on. As with everything, the devil is in the details.
    I even agree with a few of those... namley the corporate finance part, breaking down social barriers part, and the concept of revising the tax system.

    I think it brings about an interesting question though... what is more important, educating the impoverished on ways to reduce their debt and improve their economic situation, or chaning the rules of the game that favor the super wealthy? Personally, I agree that both need to happen. We all need to be able to play by the same rules and I think that in many impoverished communities there are cultureal factors that hinder their progress.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  11. #11
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,659
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I even agree with a few of those... namley the corporate finance part, breaking down social barriers part, and the concept of revising the tax system.

    I think it brings about an interesting question though... what is more important, educating the impoverished on ways to reduce their debt and improve their economic situation, or chaning the rules of the game that favor the super wealthy? Personally, I agree that both need to happen. We all need to be able to play by the same rules and I think that in many impoverished communities there are cultureal factors that hinder their progress.
    The type of debt that "impoverished" people have is very different than middle class debt. I believe that there are some cultural things at play as well but it's a small piece of the larger puzzle.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  12. #12
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Posts
    397
    The difficulty of raising taxes on the superrich is that it doesn't necessarily raise that much additional revenue. The superrich already pay, proportionally and numerically, the vast bulk of the tax revenues in this country. To genuinely raise the amount of additional tax revenues to have a significant impact on providing new/additional social programs you would need to raise taxes on most people, including most of the middle classes, so it's not just a question of doubling taxes on the rich but increasing the tax rates on the middle class as well.

    As Kjel pointed out there are cultural factors at play which will be almost impossible to overcome. Fifty years of programs have done nothing about out of wedlock pregnancies, drug use, entrenched poverty in inner cities and rural America, etc. And of course increased social welfare isn't the answer as there's the big variable: jobs. The golden age of the 1950s wasn't because of the 90% tax rate but because of the types of manufacturing jobs available that allowed so many formerly poor people to enjoy some kind of middle class prosperity. Those jobs disappeared due to globalization and aren't coming back.

    You could raise the taxes substantially on the rich and expand the social welfare state and you'd end up with a place like Britain - high taxes and more generous welfare but with a large, permanently entrenched class of jobless people living off the dole and with little motivation to improve their lot as the very basics, housing and a minimum income, is provided by the state. Then again there's Germany - high taxes, generous welfare, but very low unemployment and minimal welfare abuse. But Germany has its own unique cultural values and is a very homogenized country, factors that aren't easily duplicated in the much larger and diverse USA.

    I don't have an answer, no one has an answer and I doubt we'll ever have an answer. I do think the US is returning to the more messy days of 19th century America. Greater income inequality is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian WSU MUP Student's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lowering the PCI in the Hills
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally posted by PennPlanner View post
    The difficulty of raising taxes on the superrich is that it doesn't necessarily raise that much additional revenue. The superrich already pay, proportionally and numerically, the vast bulk of the tax revenues in this country. To genuinely raise the amount of additional tax revenues to have a significant impact on providing new/additional social programs you would need to raise taxes on most people, including most of the middle classes, so it's not just a question of doubling taxes on the rich but increasing the tax rates on the middle class as well...
    I don't believe that the idea of higher marginal tax rates on the super rich should be looked at with the intention that they would result in directly increased tax revenue. Instead, they would hopefully be viewed as an incentive for those super rich to invest that money back into their companies and their employees and a disincentive to taking ever larger profits out in the form of wages, capital gains, dividends, etc. Hypothetically, this would have the effect of lowering the income of a few of the superrich while raising the income (and/or working conditions) of those below them. If you believe in trickle down economics, sometimes those at the top need a reason to turn the faucet on and allow the trickle to begin to flow.
    "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - 1980 Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Posts
    397
    I don't necessarily buy the argument that increased taxes would result in raising incomes or benefits for employees. Corporate America is currently sitting on huge cash reserves but that hasn't turned into higher wages for employees or greater employment. If anything what we've seen in the last half decade is companies discovering how lean and mean they could be in terms of employee numbers and wages/benefits while still churning out substantial profits.

    The age of globalization when so much can be outsourced overseas has introduced an economic model that is even more ruthlessly efficient. The way I look at it, we're entering an era when the American economy will work well enough for 70% of the population, and the other 30% is f*cked.

    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    I don't believe that the idea of higher marginal tax rates on the super rich should be looked at with the intention that they would result in directly increased tax revenue. Instead, they would hopefully be viewed as an incentive for those super rich to invest that money back into their companies and their employees and a disincentive to taking ever larger profits out in the form of wages, capital gains, dividends, etc. Hypothetically, this would have the effect of lowering the income of a few of the superrich while raising the income (and/or working conditions) of those below them. If you believe in trickle down economics, sometimes those at the top need a reason to turn the faucet on and allow the trickle to begin to flow.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,183
    Quote Originally posted by kjel View post
    The type of debt that "impoverished" people have is very different than middle class debt. I believe that there are some cultural things at play as well but it's a small piece of the larger puzzle.
    Can you expand on that? I agree that the debt is different, none of the impoverished people that I have worked with at my church had student loan debt or house mortgages. Some of them did have credit card debt, pay-day loan debt, unsecured loans, and a wider range.

    As for cultural... can you expand how this is not a bigger part of the issue?
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  16. #16
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    I don't believe that the idea of higher marginal tax rates on the super rich should be looked at with the intention that they would result in directly increased tax revenue. Instead, they would hopefully be viewed as an incentive for those super rich to invest that money back into their companies and their employees and a disincentive to taking ever larger profits out in the form of wages, capital gains, dividends, etc. Hypothetically, this would have the effect of lowering the income of a few of the superrich while raising the income (and/or working conditions) of those below them. If you believe in trickle down economics, sometimes those at the top need a reason to turn the faucet on and allow the trickle to begin to flow.
    That's been my understanding of how it has worked in the past. Tax policy on the high earners can encourage business investment or it can encourage profit taking at the expense of business investment. I would argue that we currently have a tax policy that encourages profit taking at the expense of business investment. Clearly (IMO) is a delicate balancing act.

    PennPlanner, think about it this way: business investments are generally deductable. And at the higher income levels tax rates jump. So if you are faced with a decision to take the higher income and give much of your money to the government (taxes) or take a lower income and invest money into your business by way of infrastructure, equipment, employees,etc., what would you do? If you look back at the relationship between tax rates on high earners and wealth inequality it seems to me that there is some legitimacy to this argument.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Posts
    397
    What we're really demanding here is that companies hire more people and pay them more. There's a difference between investing in the business's physical resources or research and development and hiring more people. If you rig the tax codes so companies are penalized for not spending enough on employee wages, sure enough wages will go up but employment would probably decrease as the cost of employing someone increases, the more likely firms will ruthlessly cut out the dead wood and be resistant to hiring new people unless absolutely needed.

    Interestingly enough Roosevelt tried something like this in the 1930s but the consequence was that while wages went up for the currently employed it didn't result in increased employment and may have been one of the factors behind the sluggish recovery.

    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    That's been my understanding of how it has worked in the past. Tax policy on the high earners can encourage business investment or it can encourage profit taking at the expense of business investment. I would argue that we currently have a tax policy that encourages profit taking at the expense of business investment. Clearly (IMO) is a delicate balancing act.

    PennPlanner, think about it this way: business investments are generally deductable. And at the higher income levels tax rates jump. So if you are faced with a decision to take the higher income and give much of your money to the government (taxes) or take a lower income and invest money into your business by way of infrastructure, equipment, employees,etc., what would you do? If you look back at the relationship between tax rates on high earners and wealth inequality it seems to me that there is some legitimacy to this argument.

  18. #18
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally posted by PennPlanner View post
    What we're really demanding here is that companies hire more people and pay them more. There's a difference between investing in the business's physical resources or research and development and hiring more people. If you rig the tax codes so companies are penalized for not spending enough on employee wages, sure enough wages will go up but employment would probably decrease as the cost of employing someone increases, the more likely firms will ruthlessly cut out the dead wood and be resistant to hiring new people unless absolutely needed.

    Interestingly enough Roosevelt tried something like this in the 1930s but the consequence was that while wages went up for the currently employed it didn't result in increased employment and may have been one of the factors behind the sluggish recovery.
    This reminds me of the title of a Wendell Berry book: What are People For?"

    How sad to become enslaved by a system we created and became too dull and addled to change it.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian Midori's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2013
    Location
    the Bible belt
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally posted by WSU MUP Student View post
    I don't believe that the idea of higher marginal tax rates on the super rich should be looked at with the intention that they would result in directly increased tax revenue. Instead, they would hopefully be viewed as an incentive for those super rich to invest that money back into their companies and their employees and a disincentive to taking ever larger profits out in the form of wages, capital gains, dividends, etc. Hypothetically, this would have the effect of lowering the income of a few of the superrich while raising the income (and/or working conditions) of those below them. If you believe in trickle down economics, sometimes those at the top need a reason to turn the faucet on and allow the trickle to begin to flow.
    This. I don't have a problem with rich people making money, particularly when they are providing a good or service that makes life better. But there is a point where it just becomes obscene that top management makes what it does, while other employees get peanuts for the same number of hours. I think if I were king (ha!), I'd consider escalating income taxes in the higher brackets and at the same time bringing down the phase out on charitable deductions. If you make over a certain amount, your reward is that you get to direct where that money helps if you'd rather not fork it over directly to Uncle Sam. Maybe that way you end up with an educational foundation in your name instead of solid gold sink basins in your 15th vacation home.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,659
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by Midori View post
    This. I don't have a problem with rich people making money, particularly when they are providing a good or service that makes life better. But there is a point where it just becomes obscene that top management makes what it does, while other employees get peanuts for the same number of hours. I think if I were king (ha!), I'd consider escalating income taxes in the higher brackets and at the same time bringing down the phase out on charitable deductions. If you make over a certain amount, your reward is that you get to direct where that money helps if you'd rather not fork it over directly to Uncle Sam. Maybe that way you end up with an educational foundation in your name instead of solid gold sink basins in your 15th vacation home.
    The other issue is that there is a marked difference in how "earned income" is treated by tax law as opposed to "other" compensation. You'll frequently see big honcho CEOs receiving $1 in salary but hundreds of thousand in other compensation. Again, the tax code is at work rewarding certain types of behaviors/activities that the vast majority of us will never do or take advantage of. Class mobility is all but dead.

    Personally, I think the whole tax code should be scrapped and replaced with something that is simple, easy to understand, does away with the myriad of exemptions/deductions/credits, and treats all income equally regardless of whether it's earned, unearned, investment, etc.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  21. #21
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by kjel View post
    The other issue is that there is a marked difference in how "earned income" is treated by tax law as opposed to "other" compensation. You'll frequently see big honcho CEOs receiving $1 in salary but hundreds of thousand in other compensation. Again, the tax code is at work rewarding certain types of behaviors/activities that the vast majority of us will never do or take advantage of. Class mobility is all but dead.

    Personally, I think the whole tax code should be scrapped and replaced with something that is simple, easy to understand, does away with the myriad of exemptions/deductions/credits, and treats all income equally regardless of whether it's earned, unearned, investment, etc.
    It seems that a complete overhaul of the federal tax code is something that could garner significant bipartisan support. I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger push for it.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  22. #22
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    It seems that a complete overhaul of the federal tax code is something that could garner significant bipartisan support. I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger push for it.
    I'm not sure anything can get bipartisan support in the current environment. I recall the president making a case for comprehensive tax reform in his 2012 SOU and I also recall the narrative immediately afterwards by the opposition party.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  23. #23
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,183
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I'm not sure anything can get bipartisan support in the current environment. I recall the president making a case for comprehensive tax reform in his 2012 SOU and I also recall the narrative immediately afterwards by the opposition party.
    Just because it was reform does not mean it was good reform. According to CNN, his plan was more of a 'let's tax the rich even more' plan.

    I am agree that given the situation, any change would be difficult, but I don't know if it would be impossible. The reason that the wealthy pay a lower % in taxes than some of the middle class is because of all the deductions and loopholes. I say adjust the rates so everyone's base comes down, eliminate all deductions and loop holes so if your rate is 15% you pay 15% no matter what, and fire the IRS. Make it as simple as possible and as easy as possible. I also think that if we have tax brackets we need more of them. That way going from the 15% to the 25% is not such a massive jump. I think that a curved rate with 2.5% increments would be far better.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  24. #24
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Just because it was reform does not mean it was good reform. According to CNN, his plan was more of a 'let's tax the rich even more' plan.

    I am agree that given the situation, any change would be difficult, but I don't know if it would be impossible. The reason that the wealthy pay a lower % in taxes than some of the middle class is because of all the deductions and loopholes. I say adjust the rates so everyone's base comes down, eliminate all deductions and loop holes so if your rate is 15% you pay 15% no matter what, and fire the IRS. Make it as simple as possible and as easy as possible. I also think that if we have tax brackets we need more of them. That way going from the 15% to the 25% is not such a massive jump. I think that a curved rate with 2.5% increments would be far better.
    Right. One side wants to close loopholes and raise higher bracket rates and the other side wants to cut higher bracket rates, keep loopholes and raise lower bracket rates. Pretty opposite ends of the spectrum and the only bilartisan agreement is that the current system sucks.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  25. #25
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post

    It seems that a complete overhaul of the federal tax code is something that could garner significant bipartisan support. I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger push for it.
    The current code favors the rich. That's why there is no change.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 10
    Last post: 10 Jul 2012, 1:21 PM
  2. Reasons for Bad Habits?
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 9
    Last post: 22 Oct 2010, 9:00 PM
  3. Cyburbian habits
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 22
    Last post: 08 Jun 2007, 11:06 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last post: 15 May 2006, 3:00 PM